Results 21 - 40 of 90
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: inHzsvc Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | inHzsvc | 5331 | ||
He is manifested in the way that you speak and He is One God. However, at the baptism of Christ, we see all three separated--the Father spoke from Heaven, the Son was baptized on Earth, and the Spirit descended upon Him like a dove. They are One, but, at times we see them separate. Do I understand this? Absolutely not!!! God bless. |
||||||
22 | Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19? | Acts 2:38 | inHzsvc | 2104 | ||
My take on this is that "in the name" of always means "authority". We know that Christ said "all power is given me in heaven and in earth." That is authority. Then, he passed that authority onto His church. That authority came from God the Father, through His Spirit, through His Son. You did say something there that I disagree with heartily. You said that the church was "created" in Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost. I believe the Scripture teaches otherwise. Let me give you a few reasons I believe the church was founded before Pentecost. 1) The literal meaning of church (ekklesia) means "a called out assembly." Christ called out His assembly early in His ministry. 2) They preached the gospel prior to Pentecost(Mat. 10:14, Luk. 10:1-17). 3) They baptized prior to Pentecost(Jhn. 4:1,2). 4) They received the Lords' Supper prior to Pentecost(Mat. 26:26). 5) They had an ordained ministry prior to Pentecost(Mrk. 3:14). 6) They had been taught (by Christ) about church discipline prior to Pentecost (Mat. 18:15-17). Christ actually uses the word "church" in this passage. 7) They had Christ as their Head before Pentecost(Jhn. 13:14). 8) They had a membership of 120 prior to Pentecost (Act. 1:15). Notice the people saved on Pentecost were "added to them" (Act. 2:41). 9) They had a business meeting and elected officers prior to Pentecost (Act. 1:15-26). 10) They had a treasurer prior to Pentecost (Jhn. 13:29). 11) They had the Great Commission prior to Pentecost (Mat. 28:19,20). 12) Christ was building His church prior to Pentecost (Mat. 16:18). 13) The Bridegroom was with His bride (the church) prior to Pentecost (Jhn. 3:29, Eph. 5:22-23, II Cor. 11:2). 14) Christ sang in His church prior to Pentecost (Mrk. 14:26; this was in fulfillment of Psa. 22:22; see Heb. 2:12). 15) There is NO Scripture anywhere to indicate that the church began at Pentecost. 16) Prior to Pentecost they were a body of baptized believers banded together by His authority to carry out the will of Jesus Christ. This is a church. I hope this helps all who read. God bless you and yours. |
||||||
23 | Without the Spirit? | Acts 2:38 | inHzsvc | 2139 | ||
Charis, No, that was not all to prove to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That was simply a side note. Your example about a Ferrari without gasoline is interesting. However, the Ferrari is still a Ferrari without gasoline. While Christ was on Earth with His Church, there was no need for them to be empowered by the Holy Spirit. However, after He left them, He told them to wait for the empowering of the Spirit. That didn't make them a church(ekklessia--called out assembly). It simply enabled them to carry out what He had previously instructed them to do. God bless. I appreciate your brotherly kindness. |
||||||
24 | Beautiful | Acts 3:2 | inHzsvc | 2105 | ||
Ric, I have a commentary by an old Baptist of the 1700's that I treasure above all my commentaries--Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, by John Gill. Here's what he said about that gate. I hope it helps. "which is called beautiful"; which some think was the gate Shushan, which was the eastern gate of the mountain of the house, or the outmost wall, and was so called, because Shushan, the metropolis of Persia, was pourtrayed upon it , which made it look very beautiful. The reason commonly given by the Jewish commentators why this was done, is this; when the Jews returned from captivity, the king of Persia commanded that they should make a figure of the palace of Shushan upon one of the gates of the temple, that they might fear the king, and not rebel against him; and accordingly they drew one upon the eastern gate: but some say, that the children of the captivity did this (upon their return) that they might remember the wonder of Purim, (their deliverance from Haman,) which was done in Shushan; moreover, it might be so called from the word Shushan, which signifies joy and gladness: but this does not bid so fair to be the gate here meant, since it was lower than all the rest; for as the eastern wall was lower than the rest of the walls, that when the high priest burnt the red heifer on the top of Mount Olivet, he might see the gate of the temple at the time of the sprinkling of the blood; so the gate itself was four cubits lower than the others, and therefore could not look so grand and beautiful as the rest. Indeed, concerning this eastern gate of the mountain of the house, it is said , that "in the time when the sanctuary stood, when they prayed on the mountain of the house, they went in by the way of the eastern gate." And as this was now the hour of prayer, and the people were going to the temple to pray, whose entrance was at the east gate; here it might be thought, in all probability, was laid the lame man: though it seems rather to be the eastern gate of the court of the women, which was made of Corinthian brass, and looked brighter than gold itself; of which Josephus thus speaks: "nine of the gates were covered all over with gold and silver, likewise the side posts and lintels; but there was one, without the temple, of Corinthian brass, which in dignity greatly exceeded the silver and golden ones." And since at this gate was the greatest frequency of persons, both men and women entering here; it is most likely, that here lay the lame man a begging: this is thought, by some, to be the higher gate of the house of the Lord; said to be built by Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, "2Ki 15:35" upon which text, a Jewish commentator of great note has this remark, "observe it is said of Jotham, that he built it, because he made a building on it, "more glorious and great" than it had been:" and this is also called the new gate of the house of the Lord, "Jer 26:10" and which both the Targum and Kimchi on the place say is the eastern gate. God bless you and yours. |
||||||
25 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 5889 | ||
Ro 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) Ro 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Ro 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Ro 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. From your post, it is apparent that you are trying to humanize your beliefs rather than taking the Word of God. I don't say this to offend--we all do this from time to time. I am sure that you grew up hearing the Arminianism that you believe preached as most have. However, you need to consider some things. Man is so evil, that he could never and would never choose God of his own free will. I Cor. 2:14 tells us, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Man, in his natural state, will NEVER choose God--he doesn't have the ability and he doesn't have the desire. That is called Total Depravity. Man is not partially depraved, but, totally depraved. So, man deserves hell and desires to be separated from God. However, we serve a gracious God who, by and through His grace, saves some. Now, as to the blood of Christ (which is of the utmost importance). For whom did Christ die? He either, 1) paid for every sin of every human being who has ever been born--if this is so, all will be saved because, legally, they do not owe a sin debt--it has been paid. 2) paid for some of the sins of all men--if this is so, all will be lost because they still owe a sin debt. 3) paid for all of the sins of some men (the elect)--if this is so, some will be saved and others will pay for their sin debt eternally--we know, this is the truth. Everybody limits the atonement. You limit the power of it in that it doesn't saved--it merely makes salvation "possible". I limit it as to extent because I believe Christ's atoning blood saved some. Many passages refer to Christ dying for "many", "his people", his "sheep", etc. There's a reason the Word of God is specific. God bless. |
||||||
26 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 5931 | ||
You must understand the legal part of the whole. Sin is "illegal." If Christ paid for our sins, God would be requiring double payment if we died and went to hell. If somebody paid off your home mortgage, it would be paid--you'd owe nothing more. If Christ paid for all of the sins of all men, what will some be in hell for? Unbelief? Is that not a sin that Christ died for? I hope so--we were all born in unbelief. So, again, what are some going to be in hell for? Because they didn't "accept" the payment? Does that matter if the debt has already been paid? Again, Christ legally died for some and they will be saved. All are responsible for rejecting because they did exactly what they wanted to. God bless. |
||||||
27 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6043 | ||
What you are doing is limiting the power of the blood of Christ. You are saying that it was not sufficient in itself to save sins--it had to have the faith of people added to it. Your limiting of the atonement is far worse than the Calvinistic limiting of it. The Calvinist believes that Christ surely "saved His people from their sins"(Mat. 1:21). You're reasoning says that Christ's death actually accomplished nothing and it will only accomplish if man will "let" God save him. Where is the Scripture where God ever "tried" to save somebody and they wouldn't Him? Where is the Scripture that says anybody whom Christ paid their sin debt will die and go to Hell? Again, what will the people be in Hell for--unbelief? Is this not a sin that Christ died for? I am not the one saying sins will be paid for twice. They will not. Either Christ died for them or the sinner will suffer for them eternally. May God add His richest blessings to His Word. |
||||||
28 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6044 | ||
Joe, I have found, as I am sure that you have, that the Arminian feels that he has lost control of himself if he concedes to the Doctrines of Grace. If God saved him, what control does he have? .....and that won't allow many of even the Lord's own people to see the truth. What sin do we call that? Pride. God bless you and thanks for your comments. |
||||||
29 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6112 | ||
Amen, and Amen.... I hate to say it, but, many of my Sovereign Grace Baptist friends have gone into more of a prideful attitude than humble. Always good to hear a friend speak as you do. God bless you and yours. |
||||||
30 | Dear InHzsvc, what do you mean by that? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6344 | ||
Joe knew what I meant. It was directed specifically to him. A true knowledge of "Calvinism" does not cause pride. It does just the opposite--it humbles. Knowing that salvation is of the Lord and that man has no part in saving himself exalts God and shows man to be the miserable creature that He is. How does it discourage? We still urge people to trust in Christ as their personal Savior and pray that God will enable them to do so. We tell them that Christ is the only hope of sinners and pray that God will open their heart to receive the truth by faith. You just don't have a clear picture of what the Doctrines of Grace are about. Perhaps you have been more involved with the hardshells than true Calvinistic people. |
||||||
31 | Please explain your position | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6348 | ||
I Tim. 2:4 is showing that God has a people from every nation, kindred, tribe and tongue. The Jews rejected the Gentiles who professed faith in Christ. John Gill says of this verse, "since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved, unless there are two contrary wills in God; for there are some who were before ordained by him unto condemnation, and are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; and it is his will concerning some, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned; nor is it fact that all are saved, as they would be, if it was his will they should; for who hath resisted his will? but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into everlasting punishment: rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in "#1Ti 2:1" are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved; and particularly the Gentiles may be designed, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature; whom God would have saved, as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, were to be prayed for as well as Jewish ones. Moreover, the same persons God would have saved, he would have also "come to the knowledge of the truth": of Christ, who is the truth, and to faith in him, and of all the truth of the Gospel, as it is in Jesus; not merely to a notional knowledge of it, which persons may arrive unto, and not be saved, but a spiritual and experimental knowledge of it; and all that are saved are brought to such a knowledge, which is owing to the sovereign will and good pleasure of God, who hides the knowledge of Gospel truths from the wise and prudent, and reveals them to babes: whence it appears, that it is not his will with respect to every individual of mankind; that they should thus come to the knowledge of the truth; for was it his will they should, he would, no doubt, give to every man the means of it, which he has not, nor does he; he suffered all nations to walk in their own ways, and overlooked their times of ignorance, and sent no message nor messenger to inform them of his will; he gave his word to Jacob, and his statutes unto Israel only; and the Gospel is now sent into one part of the world, and not another; and where it does come, it is hid to the most; many are given up to strong delusions to believe a lie, and few are savingly and experimentally acquainted with the truths of the Gospel; though all that are saved are brought to the knowledge of such truths as are necessary to salvation; for they are chosen to it through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth. II Peter 3:9 is simple if it was just read clearly and concentration was put on the entire verse besides just the latter phrase. The promise in the verse is to "usward" not willing that any (usward) should perish. This is speaking of the security of the believer. Rev. 2:21 really has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove. God has given all men room to repent. They are guilty for not having repented. God didn't keep anybody from repenting--they're own depravity kept them from it. Thanks for the interst. God bless. |
||||||
32 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6350 | ||
Nolan, Your attitude is so bad. Do you think before you type? If you'd quit "thinking" I'm wrong and study the Scriptures with an open mind, you might see some of these blessed truths. You can still be a witness and have a great missionary zeal for the Lord and be a Calvinist. The Calvinist believes, as you do, that everybody who trusts in Christ as their personal Savior will be eternally saved. We differ on who Christ died for, yes. If He atoned (please study this word) for the sins of all mankind, all mankind will be saved. But, He only atoned for the sins of believers. Unbelievers will suffer for their sin eternally. May God bless you. |
||||||
33 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6352 | ||
Is error not a sin? Do you not you think being a Calvinist is a sin? Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (AV) |
||||||
34 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6363 | ||
You mean to tell me you don't think it's a sin to believe something that is contrary to the Word of God? I've never, ever heard such a liberal position. What if somebody said they believed it was OK to be an alcholic? What if somebody doesn't believe in the virgin birth? Look, if something is not in line with Scripture, it is wrong. When you don't line up with God, it's a sin. We all have things, I'm sure, that we are wrong about and we need to study to get straight. Really, if you don't think it's wrong to be "wrong", why even study and worry about it? |
||||||
35 | Can you mean this? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6418 | ||
I don't think that you are looking at things from my perspective. I think a lot of Calvinistic people really misrepresent what "true" Calvinistic people believe. There are small bands of "hyper-Calvinists" who believe it was predestined for me to eat barbecue ribs today. How ridiculous. But look, what Job ever in jeopardy of losing his salvation? Do we see any time that Job ever lost his salvation? That is what Satan plans to do, but, he will never accomplish that because of the blood. Satan has, however, deceived the world as a whole. That's because the natural man is enmity with God and most people in this day and age are still in their natural state. Strictly speaking, everybody can believe or reject. However, unless God enlightens, people in their natural state cannot believe the Gospel (I Cor 2:14). Everybody deserves hell--everybody has sinned and come short of the glory of God. Everybody is at enmity with God. God would be righteous to allow everybody to die and go directly to hell--we sure weren't born wanting Him. However, our God of mercy, reached down and saved some despite who and what they were. We were no different than anybody else. We could have been born in a third world country that has never heard of Christ. We could have been born to an athiest family (as some of God's children have been). However, God blessed us to be born where we were---surely, you'd have to say we were at least given more of a "chance" if you want to use that Arminian (forgive me) terminology. But, God saved "us". We could be a drug addict, or a drunk, or a murderer. We could be a Satan worshipper or an Islamic terroist, or even an athiest. But, God, out of mercy, saved us. Logically, if all men deserve hell, and God is righteous and just, He will send all men to hell----unless, He makes a way out. So, legally, sin must be dealt with. Therefore, Christ atoned (made "at one" or reconciled) for our sins. He obviously didn't do this for every human being because they aren't "at one" with God. I hope this at least explains the true Calvinistic stance better than some of the "hardshells" who, perhaps, get more publicity than we do. By the way, John Gill was a great Baptist expositor of the 17th century. His work is quite an in depth work than can be enjoyed by all sorts of Christians. I think you can use it online at www.biblestudy.com.....not sure, though. God bless you and yours. |
||||||
36 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6419 | ||
I hate to disagree, but, Scripture only supports one truth. It CANNOT support to opposing viewpoints. Now, as you said, we might both be wrong--I agree. But, if we misinterpret Scripture and misapply it, we are in opposition to God's Word and therefore, to God. That is sin. Is any religion that makes man the author of his salvation sin when Scripture says that Jesus is the "author and finisher of our faith?"(Heb. 12:2). I'd have to say it is because it takes away from God's glory. If I'm still missing the point, I apologize. But, God didn't bless me with a good mind. But, I thank Him for the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8,9) that He has given me. God bless you and yours. |
||||||
37 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6421 | ||
By the way, I believe he said that error was not a sin. Is the Jehovah's witness in sin? What about the Mormons? |
||||||
38 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6428 | ||
Well, I only use "Calvinism" as a term. I do not necessarily agree with Calvin on everything, nor, do I think he was right about everything. I don't see how you can say that men have debated without coming to a conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that the Doctrines of Grace are true--that Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Particular Redemption, Effectual Calling, and Eternal Security are true. They are Scriptural. There is no Scripture, therefore, that goes against them because the Scripture doesn't contradict itself. Now, if other people disagree, that doesn't mean that the conclusion that I came to is wrong. It could mean that they are wrong and the Scripture is right. I will say this, if you believe what you said above, you must be more of a Calvinist than an Arminian because the Arminian doesn't believe the things you said you did. Remember, the definition of "grace" is "unmerited favor." Even when we deserved what the world deserves, God saved us without any merit on our part. God bless, and, thanks for disagreeing, agreeably. |
||||||
39 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6429 | ||
I agree. However, any bit of "leaven", or untruth, can grow to this point. God bless. |
||||||
40 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | inHzsvc | 6431 | ||
Here's a web-site that you might enjoy reading. This guy is a Baptist and is in no way a big fan of Calvin. God bless. http://club.in-touch.net/home/ctmiller/gracetoc.htm You might have to type it in or just search www.altavista.com for "abandoned truth". |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |